One of the horror genre's "most widely read critics" (Rue Morgue # 68), "an accomplished film journalist" (Comic Buyer's Guide #1535), and the award-winning author of Horror Films of the 1980s (2007), The Rock and Roll Film Encyclopedia (2007) and Horror Films of the 1970s (2002), John Kenneth Muir, presents his blog on film, television and nostalgia, named one of the Top 100 Film Studies Blog on the Net.

Tuesday, December 27, 2016

The Films of 2016: Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)

[Beware of Spoilers.]

In
the months since the theatrical release of The Force Awakens (2015), I have
been (vocally) critical about Disney’s impending strip-mining of the Star
Wars franchise, with the studio planning to drop a film every
year.

On Facebook last week I saw a meme
about Gonk Droid: A Star Wars Story, and feared that we are just one
step removed from such an absurdity.

Fortunately,
Rogue
One: A Star Wars Story (2016) is the first product to emerge from Disney’s
assembly line stretching from here to eternity, and for the moment my fears
seem unmotivated.

Why?

Rogue
One is a great
movie, and a great Star Wars film to boot.

Indeed,
in spirit and texture, Gareth Edward’s film is the closest thing to A New
Hope (1977) and The Empire Strikes Back (1980) that
franchise fans have seen in over thirty-five years.

If that’s what you seek in
a Star
Wars movie, you’ll be enormously pleased with this film, which seems to
have emerged from another decade...through a time warp.

I’ll
go further than that in my praise.

Rogue
One features
all the suspense and intrigue that audiences could hope for, and these are
qualities that I felt were largely missing from The Force Awakens; a film
I liked but didn’t love.

Here,
the battle scenes are crisply and colorfully executed, so that we know the
geography of the fight, and the importance of each and every sacrifice. Here,
although we know the outcome of the plot -- The Death Star plans are
transmitted -- we are never quite sure how steep the cost will be.

Rest
assured, the cost is steep.

I
am not a J.J. Abrams hater, nor a prequel hater. In fact, as my reviews on the
blog attest, I enjoyed the prequels quite a bit (and yes The Force Awakens too…).

However, what I see as the most glorious achievement of Rogue One is the
restoration of Star Wars original promise: that “everyday” people can be
heroes too. That people like you and me, banding together, can achieve great
things.

That’s
a message -- in the age of Midichlorians -- that was sacrificed in the last decade of Star
Wars films. The prequels (which again, I’m not
hating on…) followed a more overtly fascist approach. You needed to have the right
blood-line to be a Jedi or a Sith, or a movie-worthy hero.

Delightfully,
Rogue
One puts the idea of human -- not superhuman -- heroes front and
center, where it belongs, and more than that, gives the audience its closest
look yet at the Rebel Alliance.

I was delighted to see that the Rebel Alliance
is not monolithic, nor “good” in a black-and-white sense.

Rather, it is a messy
conglomeration of competing agendas, but with one common purpose: the defeat of
the Empire. This approach contributes
immeasurably to the “reality” underlining the lived-in universe of Star
Wars.

Rogue
One features other virtues too. It’s a travelogue, in a sense, revealing at least
four fascinating new worlds (Kafrene, Jedha, Eadu, and Scarif), though it doesn't visit them all with the depth I would have preferred.

And, finally, the film is a great showcase for Darth Vader at his most monstrous. Although the Sith Lord has limited screen
time here, the filmmakers make the most of that time, showcasing a Vader who is
nothing less than terrifying.

Rogue
One isn’t perfect, for certain.

The first hour is muddled and largely incoherent, and some characters
make baffling or opaque decisions. But by the time Rogue One reaches hour number two, the
film seems to pull itself together, with all thrusters firing in one glorious direction: towards a
relentless, suspenseful, rousing final act.

A
long time ago in a galaxy far, far away….the rebel alliance frees small-time
crook Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones) from an Imperial gulag, in the hopes that she
can help them get an audience with extremist Saw Guerrera (Forest Whitaker),
who raised her following the death of her mother, and her father’s capture by
the Empire.

Guerrera
-- who lives in a holy city on Jedha -- has captured an imperial pilot, Bodhi
Rook (Riz Ahmed). The pilot has a message from Jyn’s father, Galen (Mads
Mikkelsen), one in which the scientist reports that he has built a flaw into
the Death Star’s reactor. Guerrera, however, suspects an imperial trap.

Captain
Andor (Diego Luna), and his reprogrammed imperial droid, K2SO (Alan Tudyk) are
assigned to transport Jyn to see Guerrera, but the mission takes a catastrophic turn
when the Imperials test the Death Star’s weaponry at Jedha.

After
a mission to Eadu to find Galen, Andor and Jyn attempt to convince the Rebel
Alliance to locate and steal the Death Star’s plans in the Imperial Archive on
Scarif.

But the Death Star is also en route to Scarif, as is Lord Vader…

I wont mince words: Rogue
One’s first
act is not promising. The narrative is unnecessarily complicated with a lot of
planet hopping, and myriad introductions to characters we don’t recognize, and
don’t really understand. In short, we don't always understand where we are, who we are with, or why any of it matters.

The
weakest character in the film is Whitaker’s rebel extremist, Saw Guerrera --
Che Guevara? -- who comes across as paranoid, resorts to torture, and then,
when faced with annihilation, accepts his death feebly, rather than escaping to
fight another day.

The question regarding Guerrera is, simply, would a
character who is so paranoid about a trap that he instantly resorts to torture
willingly give up his life when faced with an attack by his enemy?

If
you’re so worried about a trap, the inference is that you care about what
happens to you. Saw chooses suicide by
Death Star instead. It feels like a plot contrivance for him to die at this juncture, when the audience still knows almost nothing about him.

The section of the
film involving Guerrera is long and convoluted, and his allegiances and agenda -- other than showing Jyn a hologram of her father -- are not entirely clear. I understand the value of creating a kind of “extremist”
rebel character to contrast with the nice, friendly, image we may carry of
rebels (hey, boys and girls, everybody gets to be a general in this army!) but the character
just doesn’t work.

Also,
the scene shifts from planet to planet, early on, are jarring. I love the
travelogue aspects of the film, and we encounter some beautiful worlds here. But some scenes only leave the audience
wanting more. I know I felt that way about Kafrene, the trading post. This is a hustling-bustling, overcrowded
world that looks like something from Blade Runner, and a world worthy of a
closer look. Instead the rocky wasteland worlds --
Jedha and Eadu -- get more play time.

The
overall impression of Rogue One, starting out, is of a
film in search of its setting, its purpose, and its narrative drive. Fortunately, everybody rallies and the film
rises above its sense of disorganized chaos following the excursion to Eadu.

The
final act, on Scarif, is stunning.

It is legitimately breathtaking.

It is also purposeful, beautifully rendered,
and exciting as hell. This sustained, complex battle sequence
represents “the gritty war movie” fans were promised, and generates almost
unbearable suspense as the strategy to steal the Death Star plans is
enacted.

That plan would not work,
incidentally, without several characters choosing a meaningful death (a strong
contrast to Guerrera’s baffling choice for a meaningless one). Droids and
guardians of the Whills, alike, sacrifice their lives to push the strategy
forward.

I’ll
confess, I loved this choice on the part of the filmmakers. And I loved the message that sometimes to win a war or
battle, sacrifice is necessary.
Sometimes, an idea -- like freedom – can only survive at extreme
personal cost. Sometimes in the Star
Wars saga, however, the Force is but a gimmick which gets one out of scrapes, or
dangerous situations, and so the sense of danger is minimized.

Not here.

Here, the Force is called upon as a source of
Faith and strength, but not a deus ex
machina which miraculously saves the lives of the protagonists. I love that for the heroes of Rogue One, their
actions are undertaken with knowledge that the consequences will be grave.

They choose to fight anyway. The galaxy -- and its freedom -- means more than their lives, and they accept that fact.

Rogue
One also gives
the world a glimpse at the Darth Vader that we’ve always known existed, but
have never truly seen in action. It’s true that we saw a dark Anakin kill a
number of Trade Federation agents on Mustafar in Revenge of the Sith
(2005), but that was pre-Vader. Rogue
One offers us our first opportunity to see Vader -- more machine than
man -- unleash his wrath on screen in a sustained, horrifying fashion.

More
than one critic has likened Vader’s scene to a horror movie, and that’s an apt
description. We see here why Vader has developed such a reputation for being a
fearsome enforcer. He goes about his task with ruthless, merciless, murderous
focus. He is terrifying, the last person in the universe you want to encounter
in the dark. The scene of his arrival on a rebel starship, first in darkness (then bathed in the red light of his saber) is unforgettable.

The
entire sequence on Scarif (and in Scarif orbit) is a master class in building
and sustaining suspense through cross-cutting.

The sequence generates a
roller-coaster ride of motions, because we see characters who we have grown to
like and admire (such as my favorite, K2S0) give the cause every last breath.
It’s a foregone conclusion, as I’ve written above, that the Death Star plans
get to their destination, but the magic of Rogue One is that it still erects
this massive aura of tension around the characters and their choices, as the
battle rages.

Rogue
One also features approximately a million and one “fan service”
moments, from hammerhead spaceships to Walrus Men, from R2-D2 and C3PO to Vader’s
castle on Mustafar, and yet each one of these touches feels organic and right,
like a valid piece of the film’s tapestry.

The much-discussed CGI representations of Tarkin and Leia are unfortunate, and poorly rendered, and the only moments I can recall that took me out of Rogue One's narrative. They exist, ironically, not as fan service,
but so as to create a more solid continuity with A New Hope. I worry that
these moments will hurt the film’s longevity. In five years, they will look
even more egregiously “wrong” than they do in 2016. I think re-casting would have been a better choice than the use of a dodgy, not entirely successful technology.

These
are small quibbles, no doubt.

I will tell you this, with some certainty: After The Force Awakens last year, I
worried that I had outgrown my love of Star Wars. The film was fine.

Really. It was.

But the rerun Death Star/Starkiller Base, and general lack of overall suspense (not to mention visual clarity) made me feel that I had moved beyond any real need to stay current or
passionate about the franchise. I vowed I would see the films, as a completist, if necessary. But I feared the days of being inspired by Star Wars films was over.

7 comments:

John, what I appreciate most about your commentaries is that you try to find something positive in the material. However, I didn't like the movie much. Plot holes abound.

For example, you'd think that somewhere in the ensuing 4 movies, that megablaster would've been useful to the rebels (not to mention the Empire). But no, there's only one of them, making it more rare than lightsabers.

As for Guerrera, he's clearly unstable. That said, one possible explanation is that he figures out he's been wrong in how he's been fighting, but also knows he's too old to change. So he just steps out of the way.

I don't care for the ending. Yes, we know everyone is going to die, except those who show up in later movies). But if you punch a hole in the shield, wouldn't it make sense to, I don't know, fly a ship through it? Not to mention that apparently long, long ago and far, far away they can't copy hard drives.

On a technical note, I really, really don't like how Leia and Tarkin were credited. It seems to me that if you're going to put someone's face in the movie, they ought to be credited. Probably, those characters should get dual credits: one for the body actor, and one for the face. This will start happening more and more (wouldn't it be a kick to see Wizard of Oz with Shirley Temple in place of Judy Garland?)

Great insights as always! Glad to hear you liked the film. I also think it is the best Star Wars movie since Empire, and flat out one of the best films of 2016 period (I Have it number 5 on by best 10 list).

Great point about the visual clarity. Gareth Edwards stayed in master shots and used smooth cuts and great camera placement. The space battle (and action below) is one the best action sequences I have seen in a long time, and we always knew exactly where we were and what was happening. No bleeping random camera shaking crap or over-editing to close-ups here.

The film was also visually interesting, with every set (be it real or CGI, I don't really care because it FELT real), and indeed every frame packed with cool looking and functional-looking stuff.

I just loved the Jyn Erso character and thought Felicity Jones was fantastic. Actually, I loved all the characters, and felt for their sacrifice.

Director Krennic was a good villain and those two scenes with Vader, I mean are you kidding me. Wow! I was actually physically afraid for those poor bastards stuck in that airlock with him.

I liked it a lot. That last scene with Vader was so aggressive and forceful. Some people say that the characters were left vague but I don't mind because it was a movie about the Star Wars galaxy and about war, which was exactly I went to see. This is the war movie I wanted to see after seeing the original trilogy years ago.

I was looking forward to your review of this. You always give me new eyes with which to see the film, and to appreciate it from different angles. Star Trek: Beyond, for example - a film I was not too keen on after my first viewing, but is now one of my favorite films of the Summer.

There's a lot to appreciate about Rogue One, and although I didn't love the film, I liked it quite a bit, the strongest element for me (visuals not withstanding) being the characters. In fact, I really did love the new characters in The Force Awakens, and found the same strengths here. I was genuinely distressed by K2-SO's fate -- and he's a frigging droid! There's also a tremendous amount of poignancy at the conclusion of the film regarding these characters, and what they gave up to bring to the rebellion. The rebellion would not have succeeded without them.

I also loved the notion of turning a plot hole from Star Wars into a plot point in Rogue One. While I'm still not past my issues with seeing the same ships fighting the same battles, I can't argue that these were some of the most impressively choreographed space battles we've ever seen in any space opera.

You know, John, you're definitely doing something right when you make me want to stop typing about a film and run out to see it again. Stop being so good at your job! A guy can lose all of his free time this way! ;)

I really, really did not like this film. At all. And I say this as someone who really liked the prequels. Fan service and nostalgia do not equal quality. This film (in much the same way as The Force Awakens) just feels like glorified fan fiction. The characters weren't characters, they were archetypes that I never cared about. The plot bored me. The themes seemed trite.

Hitchcock described a MacGuffin as something that the characters in a story are intensely interested in but which we, the audience, don't care about at all. It's the catalyst that gets the characters together and gets the story going (which is what we as the audience do care about). The stolen Death Star plans were the MacGuffin of A New Hope. BY DEFINITION we weren't supposed to care about them (only about the actions that they set in motion). So Rogue One is (again, BY DEFINITION) about something that we are not supposed to care about. And I didn't. The film never sustained my interest. Frankly it bored me.

People can say what they want about the prequels, but at least they tried something new. Rogue One and The Force Awakens don't. They feel safe. They're only interest seems to be in stoking Gen X nostalgia for the first film and strip mining it rather than building upon it and taking it in new directions (like the prequels did).

I'm a life long Star Wars fan (I was four when A New Hope was released) but at this point I think I'm moving on. Disney's strategy is clearly financially successful. And if the public likes what they're being given, more power to them. But it's just not appealing to me anymore. Ironically, while I never cared much at all for Star Trek, the rebooted film series of that franchise actually does interest me. That feels new and different and interesting in a way that the new Star Wars films just don't.

"However, what I see as the most glorious achievement of Rogue One is the restoration of Star Wars original promise: that “everyday” people can be heroes too."

There is no any restoration of that promise as Star Wars never left that promise in the first place. And that includes The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clone and Revenge of the Sith.

The characters like Padmé Amidala, Shmi Skywalker, Jar-Jar Binks, Captain Panaka, Han Solo, Lando Calrissian, the Gungans, the Ewoks, the Rebels, the Naboo Royal Guards and so on aren´t any less heroic than characters like Master Yoda, Luke, Leia and the pre-dark side Anakin Skywalker.

It´s Padmé, her people and the gungans who defeat the Trade Federation in The Phantom Menace, not the Jedi.

About John

award-winning author of 27 books including Horror Films FAQ (2013), Horror Films of the 1990s (2011), Horror Films of the 1980s (2007), TV Year (2007), The Rock and Roll Film Encyclopedia (2007), Mercy in Her Eyes: The Films of Mira Nair (2006),, Best in Show: The Films of Christopher Guest and Company (2004), The Unseen Force: The Films of Sam Raimi (2004), An Askew View: The Films of Kevin Smith (2002), The Encyclopedia of Superheroes on Film & Television (2004), Exploring Space:1999 (1997), An Analytical Guide to TV's Battlestar Galactica (1998), Terror Television (2001), Space:1999 - The Forsaken (2003) and Horror Films of the 1970s (2002).

Follow by Email

What the Critics Say...

"...some of the best writing about the genre has been done by John Kenneth Muir. I am particularly grateful to him for the time and attention he's paid to things others have overlooked, under-appreciated and often written off. His is a fan's perspective first, but with a critic's eye to theme and underscore, to influence and pastiche..." - Chris Carter, creator of The X-Files, in the foreword to Horror Films FAQ (October 2013).

"Hands down, John Kenneth Muir is one of the finest critics and writers working today. His deep analysis of contemporary American culture is always illuminating and insightful. John's film writing and criticism is outstanding and a great place to start for any budding writer, but one should also examine his work on comic books, TV, and music. His weighty catalog of books and essays combined with his significant blog production places him at the top of pop culture writers. Johns work is essential in understanding the centrality of culture in modern society." - Professor Bob Batchelor, cultural historian and Executive Director of the James Pedas Communication Center at Thiel College (2014).

"...an independent film scholar, [Muir] explains film studies concepts in a language that is reader-friendly and engaging..." (The Hindu, 2007)"...Muir's genius lies in his giving context to the films..." (Choice, 2007)